[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] docs: Document optional GitLab code review process

[Dylan Baker]

Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2018-11-28 11:30:32)
> Yes, but the point is that we (the reviewers) know that we're conflicting. 
> That's very different from what I could easily see happening *a lot* were ML
> reviewer A is perfectly happy with some bit of code but MR reviewer B asks for
> it to be completely reworked.  In v2 of the series, the submitter reworks it
> but now reviewer A is unhappy.  "Why did you change it?" he says, "It was just
> fine before!".  "Reviewer B requested the rework," says the submitter.  "When
> did he say that?  I didn't see that comment." says B.  "On the GitLab MR," says
> the submitter.  "Well, I don't read MRs; this kind of feedback should happen on
> the list where we can all read it," says A.
> 
> If you can't immagine that exchange happening, then you haven't been on this
> list long enough. :-)  (Says a guy who's been on the list for about half as
> long as Jordan.)
> 
> We have enough stubborn people on the list that MRs are going to constantly get
> pulled back to the list just because someone doesn't want to use the web
> interface.  That's really mean to submitters who actually want to use the MR
> process and is strictly worse than what we have today.  If we're going to
> actually try out MRs, we need those people trying it too at least from the
> reviewer side.

This is exactly my concern, and the reason I think we need to be "all in" on one
or the other. I have a preferences for MRs, but I'm fine with continuing to use
the mailing list. This is (IMHO) a case where both is strictly worse than
either choice.

Dylan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/attachments/20181128/c688be98/attachment.sig>